Re: Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

2017-08-17 18:46 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode <
unicode_at_unicode.org>:

> On 8/17/2017 7:47 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> 2017-08-17 16:24 GMT+02:00 Mike FABIAN via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org>:
>
>> Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode_at_unicode.org> さんはかきました:
>> Most emoji now have "W", for example:
>>
>> 1F600..1F64F;W # So [80] GRINNING FACE..PERSON WITH FOLDED HANDS
>>
>> That seems correct because emoji behave more like Ideographs.
>>
>> Isn’t this the same for “CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE”?
>> This seems to me also more like an Ideograph.
>
>
> Not really. They have existed since extremely long without being bound to
> ideographs or sinographic requirements on metrics. Notably their baseline
> and vertical extension do not follow the sinographic em-square layout
> convention (except when they are rendered with CJK fonts, or were encoded
> in documents with legacy CJK encodings, also rendered with suitable CJK
> fonts being then prefered to Latin fonts which won't use the large
> siongraphic metrics).
>
> If they were like emojis, they would actually be larger : I think it is a
> case for definining a Emoji-variant for them (where they could also be
> colored or have some 3D-like look)
>
>
> There's an emoji variant for the standard digits.
>

Do you speak about circled numbers ? I don't think so.

I (and Mike as well to which I was replying) was speaking about a good case
for defining emoji variant of these circled (or squared) numbers (Mike
spoke about circled number 10, which is not encoded as an emoji and not
even as an ideograph, and that he proposed to give a wide width property
like ideographs).
Received on Thu Aug 17 2017 - 18:51:13 CDT